Do you think there should be an intermediate verdict available to the jury?

Under the present system, the jury can only either vote a verdict of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'.
But all too often the evidence for serious crimes is only circumstantial. There's a very high probability the accused did it—or so it seems—but you can't know for certain.

Should there be another, third option for the jury? I mean like "not proven beyond a shadow of doubt".

That way we wouldn't be letting someone who was probably guilty go off without punishment, but at the same time the jury would be able to have some input into recommending a more lenient sentence, in light of there being a small probability the accused did not do it.

There are many court cases where the jury ended up voting guilty just because the burden of evidence was verging on the edge. The case could have gone either way. (And we all know there's a tremendous pressure for the jury to reach a unanimous verdict)

Some people who might be innocent will get the full burden of the law, and some people who might be guilty will get let off, just because there wasn't quite enough evidence to be absolutely sure with complete confidence.
Maybe it's more logical to have a slightly more graduated approach.

I know some people say the defendant shouldn't be found guilty if it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but in reality, that's not how it works. There are crimes so terrible, it's human nature to want to punish, regardless of whether there might be a tiny chance the one being accused didn't do it. And if there's no intermediate option, the one being sentenced could get the full measure of the law.

I know the judges have some discretion in sentencing, but shouldn't this be something the jury has more input into? After all, it's supposed to be the jury who decides whether there's enough evidence or not, or how much the evidence proves guilt.

Man shoots wife and she dies. Man claims he accidentally shot her. Prosecutors charge him with murder because he had a motive.

It was both their second marriage and they kept their finances separate, but in recent years his finances had not been doing so good and he was living off his wife's money.

The jury in this case voted him guilty of murder. So a man killed his wife in what may have been an accident, but a possible motive did exist for him to kill her.

So you can get some idea, "innocent" and "guilty" is not always so clear cut.

Keep in mind this is from the husband's side of the story:

As they came close to the intersection of Peachtree and Pine, near the homeless shelter, the spokesman says they were approached by several individuals and they were afraid they were going to get carjacked so the McIvers retrieved a pistol out of the center console. The gun was still wrapped in a Publix grocery bag.

Nothing happened and they drove away, but several blocks later, on Piedmont Avenue, the spokesperson says their car hit a bump and the gun went off, striking Diane McIver in the back.

The spokesman said Tex McIver was holding the pistol in his lap when it discharged.

He said the McIvers didn't call 911 because they didn’t think it was a life-threatening wound and felt they could get to the hospital quickly on their own. Despite being farther away than other hospitals, they decided to go to Emory University Hospital in DeKalb because Diane McIver's physicians were there. The spokesman said they called ahead to let the hospital know they were coming.

It looks like the jury in this case convicted him of "felony murder" because, even if shooting his wife was accidental, he still had a gun in the car, and the jury believed the use of his gun in that situation broke the law. Thus, technically under Georgia law, he would be responsible for her death, even if accidental.

I don't agree with this, it's another example of how laws are written having unforeseen consequences in certain types of situations those who passed the law didn't bother anticipating. The jury came very close to being deadlocked on the felony murder charge, but in the end that was what the law said, so he got convicted.

Under the present system, the jury can only either vote a verdict of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'.
But all too often the evidence for serious crimes is only circumstantial. There's a very high probability the accused did it—or so it seems—but you can't know for certain.

Should there be another, third option for the jury? I mean like "not proven beyond a shadow of doubt".

That way we wouldn't be letting someone who was probably guilty go off without punishment, but at the same time the jury would be able to have some input into recommending a more lenient sentence, in light of there being a small probability the accused did not do it.

There are many court cases where the jury ended up voting guilty just because the burden of evidence was verging on the edge. The case could have gone either way. (And we all know there's a tremendous pressure for the jury to reach a unanimous verdict)

Some people who might be innocent will get the full burden of the law, and some people who might be guilty will get let off, just because there wasn't quite enough evidence to be absolutely sure with complete confidence.
Maybe it's more logical to have a slightly more graduated approach.

I know some people say the defendant shouldn't be found guilty if it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but in reality, that's not how it works. There are crimes so terrible, it's human nature to want to punish, regardless of whether there might be a tiny chance the one being accused didn't do it. And if there's no intermediate option, the one being sentenced could get the full measure of the law.

I know the judges have some discretion in sentencing, but shouldn't this be something the jury has more input into? After all, it's supposed to be the jury who decides whether there's enough evidence or not, or how much the evidence proves guilt.

Click to expand...

Juries are the one part of the legal system where you might fund actual justice.

In some places and situations, juries make up their own mind independent of the judges decrees. I know a man who was on a 2 week jury stint, they see multiple cases. He convinced his fellow jurors that unless there were additional severe charges, every case of resisting arrest or interfering with a cop the accused should be found innocent. And that's what they did. Good for them. Cops use those charges to abuse people.